Keith Jamerson v. Gail Lewis
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8310
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Jamerson was charged in California state court with unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle and receiving stolen property; he was convicted of receiving stolen property, while the other count was dismissed after a hung verdict.
- During voir dire Jamerson objected to the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of black jurors under Batson/Wheeler; the trial court required race-neutral reasons and denied the motions after the prosecutor gave explanations.
- The California Court of Appeal affirmed, invoking deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and declining a comparative juror analysis at that time.
- The federal district court granted habeas relief after a magistrate judge found the state court’s analysis unreasonable; the district court considered evidence including comparative analysis and driver’s license photographs.
- The California Supreme Court denied review; this court reviews the state court decision under AEDPA’s deferential standard and must resolve the Batson issue in light of the required first-instance comparative analysis.
- The court ultimately held that Pinholster did not bar consideration of photos reconstructing the venire’s racial composition and that the state court’s decision denying relief was not unreasonable; habeas relief was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state court’s Batson ruling was unreasonable under AEDPA after comparative analysis | Jamerson argues the state court failed properly to perform a de novo comparative analysis; error in credibility assessment | State contends the state court reasonably credited race-neutral explanations | Not unreasonable; comparative analysis conducted first; no AEDPA violation; relief denied |
| Whether Pinholster precludes consideration of enlarged driver’s license photos showing venire racial makeup | Pinholster bars new evidence not in the state record | Photos reconstruct facts visible to the state court; not barred | Pinholster does not bar consideration of such photographs for Batson analysis |
| Whether Juror #4856’s strike was genuinely race-neutral under the first-pass Batson inquiry | Prosecutor relied on a physical ailment and possible sympathy with defendant | Reasons were credible and supported by the record; trial court credited them | Genuine, race-neutral justification supported; no pretext |
| Whether Juror #0970’s strike was genuinely race-neutral under Batson’s framework | Comparative analysis shows pretext; other jurors with similar traits remained | Justifications believable; deference to trial court credibility | Justifications credible; no discriminatory motive |
| Whether the aggregate, cumulative evidence supports relief | Number of black jurors struck suggests discrimination | Cumulative analysis does not overcome the trial court’s credibility determinations | No cumulative inference of discriminatory motive; habeas relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Purkett v. Elem., 514 U.S. 765 (1995), 514 U.S. 765 (Supreme Court 1995) (per curiam; burden shifting in Batson analyses; no inference from race-neutral explanations if credible)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006), 546 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court 2006) (three-step Batson framework; credibility deference at third step)
- Miller-El v. Dretke (Miller-El II), 545 U.S. 231 (2005), 545 U.S. 231 (Supreme Court 2005) (necessity of comparative juror analysis; evidentiary weight of consistency with non-challenged jurors)
- Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2006), 465 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2006) (double deference; credibility determinations by trial court favored)
- Green v. LaMarque, 532 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008), 532 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (de novo comparative analysis where state court failed to perform it; limits of AEDPA review)
- Cook v. LaMarque, 593 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2010), 593 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussion of cumulative-discrimination analysis and deference to state court findings)
- Briggs v. Grounds, 682 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2012), 682 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2012) (doubles deference; credibility determinations reviewed for reasonableness)